But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply.
See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them,
and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if
the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil
itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it
invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—
is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and
develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly,
defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is
obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that
this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry
is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor
workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The
acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The presentday
delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of
everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of
organizing it.
Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Purpose of the Law
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Frederic Bastiat, The Law
The Law Perverted
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law becom the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
Frederic Bastiat, The Law
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Monday, November 15, 2010
Lukewarm (Truths About the Middle) by the Honorable Ed Emery
The following is from Representative Ed Emery, and, as usual, he nails it:
I am sure we will be talking about the 2010 election for decades, but one phenomenon being misunderstood is the diminishing of “the middle” in both major parties. The electorate began to pay attention when they saw freedom - the core of American exceptionalism - being replaced by the failed model of czarism. This quickened attentiveness, inspired thought, and provoked citizen-action (not something big-government liberals welcome).
The 2010 election was not so much about party or even policy as it was about character. The voter was looking for someone he/she could trust, someone who would tell them the truth about Washington, D.C. and about America. The Tea Party embodied that sentiment, and career politicians were its antithesis. American voters questioned the country’s direction, and determined to do something about it; this may have been the first election the bulk of average Americans have taken seriously in decades.
There will be a different look to Congress and to the Missouri legislature in 2011. Candidates who won may be working for meaningful reform as their top priority instead looking first to their next position, election, or fundraiser. However, the statesman must be willing to swim upstream because the indoctrination of “majority” will have already begun both in Jeff City and in DC. They may be told that their priorities are first to win re-election in 2012, second to get other party members elected to ensure the majority, and finally, in the process appease their constituency. Newest members will be addressed as “Honorable” and be treated by special interests as kings and queens – intoxicating.
The good news is that more real people are paying attention, so the next election may become even more significant than 2010 because the next election will prove if voters were just angry or were actually awakened. Will we monitor those we elected, encourage their statesmanship, and be willing to vote them out if we discover we were wrong about their character and that they do not deserve out trust. Primary elections may again become instruments of reform if voters take their responsibility seriously. We can never again forget or neglect that in America we get the government we choose (elect).
I reject the notion that “moderates” lost because people weren’t thinking. Moderates lost because voters woke up to the truth that lukewarm does not protect personal liberties; it compromises them. Lukewarm protects the status quo, not constituents and the Constitution. Even the Bible confirms that lukewarm is nauseating. Notice that successful candidates are more reflective of party platforms after the 2010 election. The democrats are more liberal and the republicans more conservative because that is what the platforms say and the voters chose. Losing the middle is not the tragedy the news media claims, on the contrary it signals that voters largely rejected compromise-above-character or politics-above-principle. Voters want to trust their elected officials not serve them.
I am sure we will be talking about the 2010 election for decades, but one phenomenon being misunderstood is the diminishing of “the middle” in both major parties. The electorate began to pay attention when they saw freedom - the core of American exceptionalism - being replaced by the failed model of czarism. This quickened attentiveness, inspired thought, and provoked citizen-action (not something big-government liberals welcome).
The 2010 election was not so much about party or even policy as it was about character. The voter was looking for someone he/she could trust, someone who would tell them the truth about Washington, D.C. and about America. The Tea Party embodied that sentiment, and career politicians were its antithesis. American voters questioned the country’s direction, and determined to do something about it; this may have been the first election the bulk of average Americans have taken seriously in decades.
There will be a different look to Congress and to the Missouri legislature in 2011. Candidates who won may be working for meaningful reform as their top priority instead looking first to their next position, election, or fundraiser. However, the statesman must be willing to swim upstream because the indoctrination of “majority” will have already begun both in Jeff City and in DC. They may be told that their priorities are first to win re-election in 2012, second to get other party members elected to ensure the majority, and finally, in the process appease their constituency. Newest members will be addressed as “Honorable” and be treated by special interests as kings and queens – intoxicating.
The good news is that more real people are paying attention, so the next election may become even more significant than 2010 because the next election will prove if voters were just angry or were actually awakened. Will we monitor those we elected, encourage their statesmanship, and be willing to vote them out if we discover we were wrong about their character and that they do not deserve out trust. Primary elections may again become instruments of reform if voters take their responsibility seriously. We can never again forget or neglect that in America we get the government we choose (elect).
I reject the notion that “moderates” lost because people weren’t thinking. Moderates lost because voters woke up to the truth that lukewarm does not protect personal liberties; it compromises them. Lukewarm protects the status quo, not constituents and the Constitution. Even the Bible confirms that lukewarm is nauseating. Notice that successful candidates are more reflective of party platforms after the 2010 election. The democrats are more liberal and the republicans more conservative because that is what the platforms say and the voters chose. Losing the middle is not the tragedy the news media claims, on the contrary it signals that voters largely rejected compromise-above-character or politics-above-principle. Voters want to trust their elected officials not serve them.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
The Sacrament of Nullification
“The conservatives took control of the House of Representatives, now what?” Whether you believe the statement to be true or not, this is the question that is consuming everyone with an interest in politics. What will the President do? Will he change direction? Will he moderate? What will Congress do? Will the Republicans compromise? These are all questions that the political pundits and private citizens are asking. All eyes are on Washington, D.C. to see what shift will occur as a result of the electoral sea change was produced on November 2.
The next step does not belong to the federal government in Washington, D.C. The next step belongs to the states. In a previous article “Nullification v. Revolution,” I suggested that the Declaration of Independence was the model and guide for the states in responding to the federal tyrant if it did not change its course. Now it appears that there is a possibility that there may be a change in course due to the election of November 2.
However, the change appears to be only in seed form. While there was a vast change in the makeup of the House of Representatives, those who orchestrated the reign of tyranny from the White House and U.S. Senate for the past two years are still ensconced on their thrones. The states also should remember that simply being controlled by Republican does not mean that the House will move the federal government to be faithful to its covenant obligations found in the U.S. Constitution. Lest we forget, the Republicans had much more control during the period from 1994 to 2004 and the Republicans failed to change the course of the federal tyrant. In fact, they fostered it.
If the Declaration of Independence is the model and guide on how the states should respond to tyranny, the U.S. Constitution is the guide on how the states should live together. The word “federal” in the phrase “federal government,” is defined in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary as “Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.” This is a significant and glorious meaning that most of our politicians have lost with their loss of the status of statesmen. A covenant has to do with a compact or trust between separate entities. The covenant of the states is the U.S. Constitution.
The key to understanding the U.S. Constitution at this point in our covenantal history is the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is the only provision that attempts to set forth the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted. It clearly states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The federal government is a government of limited powers. The U.S. Constitution must be read with this understanding in mind.
The federal government has clearly lost its way in constraining itself within the limits of the delegation of authority granted by the states. It taxes and spends money on frivolous projects. It places our children in debt for the sake of benefits to particular individuals. It fails to secure our boarders, one of its primary functions. There is little evidence that it can begin to do so unless an outside force is exerted on it. That source is the very entities that established it in the first place: the states.
If one studies ancient near east covenants, one finds that covenants incorporated a covenantal sign and seal. The sign was often a ritual meal. For the ancient Hebrew nation, there were at least three such covenants with covenantal signs: the rainbow, circumcision and the Sabbath. When exercised or recognized, these covenantal signs (we now call them sacraments) brought the covenant members long life and health, for they impressed a remembrance of the covenantal relationship on the people and encouraged them to be faithful to the covenant.
It is high time that the states adopt a sacrament in their covenantal lives with the federal government, a symbol to encourage the federal government to remain faithful to its covenantal obligation, and that sacrament is found in the Tenth Amendment. The states must remind the federal government of the limits of its authority. It can only do so by nullifying those laws which they find beyond the enumerated powers delegated to it.
Ed Lazarus has decried the use of nullification:
In 2009, in addition to the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act, the Missouri Legislature debated a resolution to instruct the Missouri Congressional delegation to vote against the cap and trade bill. One of the opposing arguments was that such debate was a waste of time. The resolution would not be worth the paper that it was written on. Should anyone be able to make such a statement about a communication made in a healthy relationship? The very argument emphasizes that the relationship the states created among themselves is terribly sick and must be cured.
There are good signs of change from the electorate of a healthy shift in their perception of the federal government. The states must now foster and support that change. New patriots in Congress will need that support to make the change due to tyrannical advisories and due to their own human weaknesses.
Change is in the offing, but we are still very sick as a nation. There is a cure to this national tyranny. The national relationship of the states, the national covenant, must be resurrected and respected. The cure is found in the development of a strong relationship among the states as expressed in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The states must exercise that relationship by the consistent and faithful act of nullification.
The next step does not belong to the federal government in Washington, D.C. The next step belongs to the states. In a previous article “Nullification v. Revolution,” I suggested that the Declaration of Independence was the model and guide for the states in responding to the federal tyrant if it did not change its course. Now it appears that there is a possibility that there may be a change in course due to the election of November 2.
However, the change appears to be only in seed form. While there was a vast change in the makeup of the House of Representatives, those who orchestrated the reign of tyranny from the White House and U.S. Senate for the past two years are still ensconced on their thrones. The states also should remember that simply being controlled by Republican does not mean that the House will move the federal government to be faithful to its covenant obligations found in the U.S. Constitution. Lest we forget, the Republicans had much more control during the period from 1994 to 2004 and the Republicans failed to change the course of the federal tyrant. In fact, they fostered it.
If the Declaration of Independence is the model and guide on how the states should respond to tyranny, the U.S. Constitution is the guide on how the states should live together. The word “federal” in the phrase “federal government,” is defined in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary as “Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.” This is a significant and glorious meaning that most of our politicians have lost with their loss of the status of statesmen. A covenant has to do with a compact or trust between separate entities. The covenant of the states is the U.S. Constitution.
The key to understanding the U.S. Constitution at this point in our covenantal history is the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is the only provision that attempts to set forth the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted. It clearly states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The federal government is a government of limited powers. The U.S. Constitution must be read with this understanding in mind.
The federal government has clearly lost its way in constraining itself within the limits of the delegation of authority granted by the states. It taxes and spends money on frivolous projects. It places our children in debt for the sake of benefits to particular individuals. It fails to secure our boarders, one of its primary functions. There is little evidence that it can begin to do so unless an outside force is exerted on it. That source is the very entities that established it in the first place: the states.
If one studies ancient near east covenants, one finds that covenants incorporated a covenantal sign and seal. The sign was often a ritual meal. For the ancient Hebrew nation, there were at least three such covenants with covenantal signs: the rainbow, circumcision and the Sabbath. When exercised or recognized, these covenantal signs (we now call them sacraments) brought the covenant members long life and health, for they impressed a remembrance of the covenantal relationship on the people and encouraged them to be faithful to the covenant.
It is high time that the states adopt a sacrament in their covenantal lives with the federal government, a symbol to encourage the federal government to remain faithful to its covenantal obligation, and that sacrament is found in the Tenth Amendment. The states must remind the federal government of the limits of its authority. It can only do so by nullifying those laws which they find beyond the enumerated powers delegated to it.
Ed Lazarus has decried the use of nullification:
But nullification is a deeply pernicious idea. It strikes at the core of the constitutional bargain that was struck after the Revolution when the Articles of Confederation failed – the working principle that we are all in this together and that the purpose of the federal government, a government in which every state is represented, is to calibrate the shared sacrifices that all of us will have to bear to preserve the country's economic vitality and help it prosper.See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20090312.html. This is no way to describe the healthy relationship created by the U.S. Constitution: “to calibrate the shared sacrifices” that the federal tyrant will impose from on high, the sacrifices of liberty that burdening taxes impose on the citizens of these great fifty states and their children. A healthy relationship includes a give and take and a healthy rebuke from time to time and a consistent reminder to be faithful to the relationship.
In 2009, in addition to the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act, the Missouri Legislature debated a resolution to instruct the Missouri Congressional delegation to vote against the cap and trade bill. One of the opposing arguments was that such debate was a waste of time. The resolution would not be worth the paper that it was written on. Should anyone be able to make such a statement about a communication made in a healthy relationship? The very argument emphasizes that the relationship the states created among themselves is terribly sick and must be cured.
There are good signs of change from the electorate of a healthy shift in their perception of the federal government. The states must now foster and support that change. New patriots in Congress will need that support to make the change due to tyrannical advisories and due to their own human weaknesses.
Change is in the offing, but we are still very sick as a nation. There is a cure to this national tyranny. The national relationship of the states, the national covenant, must be resurrected and respected. The cure is found in the development of a strong relationship among the states as expressed in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The states must exercise that relationship by the consistent and faithful act of nullification.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Morning After
Cal Thomas writes in Townhall.com in a piece called “The Morning After”:
In addition, it is the power of the federal government that has made our citizens dependent on the power of the federal government. Making our children’s education dependent upon the federal dole continues that spiral into dependency. It is time for the Republicans to break that spiral of dependency.
Finally, Cal’s proposal is unconstitutional. The tea parties have been vocal on this point as well. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the federal government’s role in education. The federal government may only exercise such powers as are specifically listed in the Constitution. Therefore, Congress has no authority to tax its citizens in order to engineer a social outcome through education.
Cal should recognize that the primary source of education is the family and the church of Jesus Christ. If the Republicans are to be consistent with their own rhetoric, they should seek to encourage those two parts of society to reengage in the field of education. If they must act, at least do it in a manner which encourages private giving. If they must do it through a tax or incentive, a tax credit for any voluntary contribution to a private institution for educational purposes would be a far superior tactic.
Republicans should begin with school choice. Every poor person in every city should be able to withdraw his or her children from failing public schools and place them either in charter or private schools with taxpayer money. More than any welfare program, school choice will free a generation of youngsters from repeating the cycle of poverty. Republicans should re-authorize the D.C. Scholarship Fund, which Democrats allowed to die, despite its popularity and success.Cal should know better than this. The tea parties have been railing for more than a year now to stop the federal spending. However, it is apparently very easy for even conservatives to be seduced by the power of the federal government. I agree that it would be wonderful to help the poor in the inner city to have a good education, but the ends do not justify the means. We are putting our children’s children in debt for benefits to select groups of people chosen by our federal government. Cal in his proposal is doing exactly the same thing, just with a different chosen benefactor. Injustice in the form of socialism is injustice whether you are confiscating money from taxpayers for the benefit of Wall Street tycoons or any other group. While I may prefer this form of socialism, it is still socialism and unjust.
In addition, it is the power of the federal government that has made our citizens dependent on the power of the federal government. Making our children’s education dependent upon the federal dole continues that spiral into dependency. It is time for the Republicans to break that spiral of dependency.
Finally, Cal’s proposal is unconstitutional. The tea parties have been vocal on this point as well. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the federal government’s role in education. The federal government may only exercise such powers as are specifically listed in the Constitution. Therefore, Congress has no authority to tax its citizens in order to engineer a social outcome through education.
Cal should recognize that the primary source of education is the family and the church of Jesus Christ. If the Republicans are to be consistent with their own rhetoric, they should seek to encourage those two parts of society to reengage in the field of education. If they must act, at least do it in a manner which encourages private giving. If they must do it through a tax or incentive, a tax credit for any voluntary contribution to a private institution for educational purposes would be a far superior tactic.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A Response to Stephen Broden
The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/) has reported that Texas Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden renewed an observation that he has made in the past that a violent overthrow of the government is a viable option if America continues down its current path. According to the Blaze,
The Declaration of Independence is a wonderfully crafted legal document, initiating a covenantal law suit against the crown in Great Britain. It begins by declaring the rights of the states to their sovereignty under God. It then sets forth a lengthy list of the rights of Englishmen which King George had violated. It concludes with the following declaration:
We are facing unprecedented times in these United States, times in which the tyranny of the federal government approaches, and may have even surpassed that of King George. Broden has rightly assessed the times, but he has not rightly assessed the proper response. The states retain their authority to this day to dissolve the legal ties that bind them to the federal government. That is the proper next step in responding to the federal tyrant.
Many argue that the states gave up their authority with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. This is a fact that the Civil War confirmed. Nothing could be more patently absurd. If my friends and I resolve to start a business and create a corporation to conduct our business, there is nothing in the creation of that corporation that denies us the right to liquidate that business. Further, if anything, the Civil War confirmed that the states retain the authority to dissolve the relationship with the federal government. War by its very nature is recognition of competing sovereign authorities. One power being unable to achieve its goals with another power by legal means in this world may resort to violence to achieve its goals. We call it a war because it is a violent conflict between two sovereign powers.
If the November midterm elections change the course of our federal government, that is all well and good. If the November midterm elections do not change the tyrannical course of our federal government, the proper next steps belong to the states. The states must remain faithful to the U.S. Constitution if the federal tyrant will not. The states should consistently and faithfully declare in law where the federal tyrant exceeds it authority. They must nullify unconstitutional edicts.
The right of nullification is a muscle the states must exercise. The muscles of the states have atrophied after many years of lack of use. Federal mandates and incentives have induced the states to grow weak in their responsibilities to guard the freedoms of their people. Exercising their muscles will be hard at first. Bribes from the federal government will not be easy to withstand, but they must be.
To some extent, the states have already taken the first steps in their response to the federal tyrant. Various states have declared certain federal edicts null. Missouri exercised its God given authority to nullify the federal healthcare slavery with the adoption of the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act. Other states are doing likewise. But they must do more. Only by regular and consistent exercise of the right to nullify federal tyranny will the states become strong again.
This is the proper next step. Consistent and faithful state action denying the federal tyrant its usurpation of power will bring the states in conflict with the federal tyrant. Such conflict may eventually lead to secession. Violence may come at the hands of the federal tyrant, but the violence should not be initiated by the states.
In 2009, Broden said that there is a solution to tyranny: “We have a constitutional remedy. And the Framers say if that don’t work, revolution.”While violence is always a possibility, it is not true that our nation was founded on violence. The Framers did not say, “If that don’t work, revolution.” That was the course of the French revolution. What the American Framers did say was, pursue a legal dissolution of the ties that bind the states to Great Britain. What the Framers did say is if violence comes from the tyrant, so be it.
It was in response to a question regarding that statement that he said revolution is a viable option: “Our nation was founded on violence; the option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms. However, it is not the first option.”
“If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary,” Broden added.
The Declaration of Independence is a wonderfully crafted legal document, initiating a covenantal law suit against the crown in Great Britain. It begins by declaring the rights of the states to their sovereignty under God. It then sets forth a lengthy list of the rights of Englishmen which King George had violated. It concludes with the following declaration:
That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.Violence did come, but the violence was initiated by the English tyrant, not the states. Yes, the states did defend themselves as was their right, but their defense was a response to an invasion by the English tyrant.
We are facing unprecedented times in these United States, times in which the tyranny of the federal government approaches, and may have even surpassed that of King George. Broden has rightly assessed the times, but he has not rightly assessed the proper response. The states retain their authority to this day to dissolve the legal ties that bind them to the federal government. That is the proper next step in responding to the federal tyrant.
Many argue that the states gave up their authority with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. This is a fact that the Civil War confirmed. Nothing could be more patently absurd. If my friends and I resolve to start a business and create a corporation to conduct our business, there is nothing in the creation of that corporation that denies us the right to liquidate that business. Further, if anything, the Civil War confirmed that the states retain the authority to dissolve the relationship with the federal government. War by its very nature is recognition of competing sovereign authorities. One power being unable to achieve its goals with another power by legal means in this world may resort to violence to achieve its goals. We call it a war because it is a violent conflict between two sovereign powers.
If the November midterm elections change the course of our federal government, that is all well and good. If the November midterm elections do not change the tyrannical course of our federal government, the proper next steps belong to the states. The states must remain faithful to the U.S. Constitution if the federal tyrant will not. The states should consistently and faithfully declare in law where the federal tyrant exceeds it authority. They must nullify unconstitutional edicts.
The right of nullification is a muscle the states must exercise. The muscles of the states have atrophied after many years of lack of use. Federal mandates and incentives have induced the states to grow weak in their responsibilities to guard the freedoms of their people. Exercising their muscles will be hard at first. Bribes from the federal government will not be easy to withstand, but they must be.
To some extent, the states have already taken the first steps in their response to the federal tyrant. Various states have declared certain federal edicts null. Missouri exercised its God given authority to nullify the federal healthcare slavery with the adoption of the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act. Other states are doing likewise. But they must do more. Only by regular and consistent exercise of the right to nullify federal tyranny will the states become strong again.
This is the proper next step. Consistent and faithful state action denying the federal tyrant its usurpation of power will bring the states in conflict with the federal tyrant. Such conflict may eventually lead to secession. Violence may come at the hands of the federal tyrant, but the violence should not be initiated by the states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
